Whether or not China’s diplomacy is working and regardless of whether or not it is wolf or warrior or both, there is no gainsaying the fact that every major or middle power’s object of attention these days is the People’s Republic of China.
The US considers China a consequential, long term threat and is doing all it can to “de-couple” from it. This is no easy task since it involves reversing years and years of doing business together and being joined at the hip. Yet, there appears bipartisan consensus that the “de-coupling” must go ahead and that this will indeed be the case regardless of next year’s election results. The same cannot be said for the war in Ukraine, going by what some Republican leaders are saying.
The US has taken concrete measures, so the “de-coupling” is not just a matter of mere rhetoric. Two examples are noteworthy in this regard. One is the “Entity List” which is a trade restriction list published by the United States Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), consisting of certain foreign persons, entities, or governments. It is no secret that a number of key Chinese firms and persons are notified as part of this list. The second is that the United States has imposed the most sweeping export controls on China to date. The rules seek to curtail China’s access to advanced semiconductor technology, including chips and the tools and expertise to make chips or to produce China’s own semiconductor manufacturing equipment. There is reason to believe the US will do more in this regard.
While the US seeks to “de-couple”, the EU seeks to “de-risk” the Chinese factor. There is a key difference between the two strategies since the latter implies that for the EU, “de-coupling” is not an option with China. So, what does “de-risking” entail? For instance, the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment between China and the EU has stalled since 2021. This is directly related to potential Chinese investment in certain strategic sectors of the European economy which may pose a threat to economic and/or national security, especially in the context of China’s explicit fusion of its military and commercial sectors. This goes especially for sensitive technologies, dual-use goods and investment that entails forced technology transfers. European Commission President Von der Leyen stated, ahead of a trip to China, that EU will be stress-testing its relationship to see where the greatest threats to Europe’s resilience, long-term prosperity and security lie. That said, a stream of visitors are making a beeline to go to Beijing: these include French President Emmanuel Macron, Spain’s President Pedro Sanchez (who holds the rotating EU presidency at present) and of course EC President Von der Leyen. These visits will be watched closely.
India, which admittedly is not in the same league as the US and the EU, is nevertheless trying to “de-escalate” tensions at its border with China. It would seem that Wang Yi (former Foreign Minister of China and currently the top foreign policy chief sitting on the Communist Party’s Politburo) had agreed with India’s External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar on the need to take concrete measures to “dis-engage” from certain parts of Eastern Ladakh so that the troops can be withdrawn on both sides. This is yet to happen, for reasons best known to the Chinese side. It may be part of Chinese strategy to keep India off balance. Or it may be a delaying tactic to wangle more concessions from India at a time and place of their choosing. Meanwhile, India holds firm in its position that there can be no normalcy in bilateral ties if the border does not return to status quo ante. The Goa Foreign Minister-level meetings of the Shanghai cooperation Organization in the first week of May 2023 will provide yet another opportunity for the Chinese Foreign Minister and his Indian counterpart to jaw-jaw!
No matter how much one tries therefore, there is no wishing away China!
Diplomacy and Geopolitics 